Personally, I want to throw up every time the

• When BO Talks, markets tank. - Aunt Louise
  • I guess our supreme court doesn't know what it is doing with regard to the BIRTH CERTIFICATE - Mrs. Bridger
  • Get Over It - HE WON! - MTPockets
    • My gosh...we are over it - IMHO
      • You sure had me fooled then! - Skeptical that UR "Over it"
      • I agree..nm - ..
    • Funny how ya'll - Froggy went a courtin
    • Obama won. America lost. - nm
      • Uhhh...NOPE! - MTPockets
        • you don't even realize who the majority are - IMHO
          • He won by a majority...unlike the last guy! - MTPockets
            • My point is.... - IMHO
              • Where did I state that? I simply stated - that he won fair and square
          • EXACTLY!!! - ..
            • Don't you just hate the way they twist facts - see message - IMHO
        • You will, I promise you! nm - Just wait....
  • You need to take a pill and calm down, Auntie. - Try turning off your TV, too.
  • Say one more word and I will throw up! nm - oldtimer
    • Personally, I want to throw up every time the - big O President speaks -a total fake.nm

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Where did you get your debating skills?  On the south side of Chicago in some street gang?  Because if you did, it shows.

In a REAL debate, there is no room or tolerance for personal attacks.  Yet, that's all you people know how to do.  You can't stay on the issue.  You MUST attack the poster personally, claiming to know not only what they think and feel but also claiming to know what every liberal ever thought or did, what they're thinking and doing right now and what they will be thinking and doing for the next 1,000 years.  In fact, you seem to know everything about anything that ever existed on the planet, exists now or will exist into infinity. 

As I (and others) have said repeatedly and you just can't seem to grasp, if you constantly treat people badly, they're not going to want to associate with you.  Lurker was very gracious in her posts to all of you on your board, but even she, in the end, couldn't tolerate your continued, nonstop, personal attacks any more (as she indicated in her responses to the attackers).  If you ever stop knowing it all and become interested in the proper way of debating someone, you could learn a lot from Lurker.  You see, having *thick skin* is only important if you're a thug in a gang somewhere.  It's irrelevant when it comes to treating humans like humans, and in that area, you have a lot to learn. 

As for me, I like to learn from intelligent, friendly people with different political views, so I visit boards where those kinds of people are found.  Not all conservatives are angry, rude, come out swinging and need to personally attack 1,000% of the time.  Some of them are actually quite nice and informative, and they can be found on other forums.  Too bad they can't be found on MTStars.

Have a pleasant evening.

cabbages and rotten eggs at the guy.  Where do you get the 'nads to stand up there and keep sellin' when the customers just ain't buyin'?  And whether he's one of the 'good ones' or not, he sounds just like every other politician, doesn't he?  'I've devoted my life to service.....You're mad.  I hear you and Washington hears you.'   Riiight!  I hope we don't lose our fury and momentum before next year.  A good out with the old/in with the new dustup in 2010 would have them shaking in their shoes for 2012. 

else against the wall, may be it will stick.

Maybe we should acknowlege that whoever volunteers for the job has ulterior motives. 

What if we then select our candidates at random, like we do jurors for jury duty.  We select a slate of candidates that are average people with average lives, give them the chance to decline or get excused for good reason, then give them time to present a platform and vote on which one of them gets the office.  Derails the good old boy network completely.  We couldn't guarantee the new candidates wouldn't be greedy, but their greed would at least be less organized and not part of the sophisticated behind the scenes network that exists today.

out the tests for those firerighters who studied hard and earned those promotions and didn't get them merely because they were all white with one hispanic man.  To me...that is racism right there.  They didn't get the promotions because of their skin color.  Had they been a more motley crew of races, they would have gotten those promotions.  It is truly a sad day when hard work and studying doesn't benefit you because your skin color isn't that of a minority. 

I'm all for equal rights between the races and all of these firefighters were given the same studying materials and the same amount of time to study.  How can you take away those promotions from the people who studied hard and scored the highest merely because most of them are white? 

This doesn't present a very good opinion of this judge so far to me.  She also made a comment about how with her experience and her being a latino women, she could make better decisions than a white male.  Racism?  Hello?  If  a white man had said that he could make better decisions than a black man, woman, or latino.....OMG.....the race card would have been thrown out and that would have been the end of his career.  Why is it that minorities are allowed to say racist things and be racist and that is okay, but the moment a white person says something remotely racist.......that is the end of that person's career.  More double standards.

With all the hoop-lah about Obama "refusing" to submit to interview with Focks, seems McCain is throwing another temper tantrum (which I did see on CNN, but could not find to include in this post.  He cancelled his scheduled appearance on Larry King over what he considered to be an "over-the-top" inerview between Campbell Brown and Tucker Bounds. 

Here's a link to an article about the cancellation.  I could not get good audio on their link to the interview video, so I am providing this second link where I could:

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/02/mccain-cancel-cnn/

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/212194.php

Any comments from the gallery? 

    Sunday 16 October 2005

    There hasn't been anything like it since Martha Stewart fended off questions about her stock-trading scandal by manically chopping cabbage on The Early Show on CBS. Last week the setting was Today on NBC, where the image of President Bush manically hammering nails at a Habitat for Humanity construction site on the Gulf Coast was juggled with the sight of him trying to duck Matt Lauer's questions about Karl Rove.

    As with Ms. Stewart, Mr. Bush's paroxysm of panic was must-see TV. The president was a blur of blinks, taps, jiggles, pivots and shifts, Dana Milbank wrote in The Washington Post. Asked repeatedly about Mr. Rove's serial appearances before a Washington grand jury, the jittery Mr. Bush, for once bereft of a script, improvised a passable impersonation of Norman Bates being quizzed by the detective in Psycho. Like Norman and Ms. Stewart, he stonewalled.

    That stonewall may start to crumble in a Washington courtroom this week or next. In a sense it already has. Now, as always, what matters most in this case is not whether Mr. Rove and Lewis Libby engaged in a petty conspiracy to seek revenge on a whistle-blower, Joseph Wilson, by unmasking his wife, Valerie, a covert C.I.A. officer. What makes Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation compelling, whatever its outcome, is its illumination of a conspiracy that was not at all petty: the one that took us on false premises into a reckless and wasteful war in Iraq. That conspiracy was instigated by Mr. Rove's boss, George W. Bush, and Mr. Libby's boss, Dick Cheney.

    Mr. Wilson and his wife were trashed to protect that larger plot. Because the personnel in both stories overlap, the bits and pieces we've learned about the leak inquiry over the past two years have gradually helped fill in the über-narrative about the war. Last week was no exception. Deep in a Wall Street Journal account of Judy Miller's grand jury appearance was this crucial sentence: Lawyers familiar with the investigation believe that at least part of the outcome likely hangs on the inner workings of what has been dubbed the White House Iraq Group.

    Very little has been written about the White House Iraq Group, or WHIG. Its inception in August 2002, seven months before the invasion of Iraq, was never announced. Only much later would a newspaper article or two mention it in passing, reporting that it had been set up by Andrew Card, the White House chief of staff. Its eight members included Mr. Rove, Mr. Libby, Condoleezza Rice and the spinmeisters Karen Hughes and Mary Matalin. Its mission: to market a war in Iraq.

    Of course, the official Bush history would have us believe that in August 2002 no decision had yet been made on that war. Dates bracketing the formation of WHIG tell us otherwise. On July 23, 2002 - a week or two before WHIG first convened in earnest - a British official told his peers, as recorded in the now famous Downing Street memo, that the Bush administration was ensuring that the intelligence and facts about Iraq's W.M.D.'s were being fixed around the policy of going to war. And on Sept. 6, 2002 - just a few weeks after WHIG first convened - Mr. Card alluded to his group's existence by telling Elisabeth Bumiller of The New York Times that there was a plan afoot to sell a war against Saddam Hussein: From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August.

    The official introduction of that product began just two days later. On the Sunday talk shows of Sept. 8, Ms. Rice warned that we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud, and Mr. Cheney, who had already started the nuclear doomsday drumbeat in three August speeches, described Saddam as actively and aggressively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons. The vice president cited as evidence a front-page article, later debunked, about supposedly nefarious aluminum tubes co-written by Judy Miller in that morning's Times. The national security journalist James Bamford, in A Pretext for War, writes that the article was all too perfectly timed to facilitate exactly the sort of propaganda coup that the White House Iraq Group had been set up to stage-manage.

    The administration's doomsday imagery was ratcheted up from that day on. As Barton Gellman and Walter Pincus of The Washington Post would determine in the first account of WHIG a full year later, the administration's escalation of nuclear rhetoric could be traced to the group's formation. Along with mushroom clouds, uranium was another favored image, the Post report noted, because anyone could see its connection to an atomic bomb. It appeared in a Bush radio address the weekend after the Rice-Cheney Sunday show blitz and would reach its apotheosis with the infamously fictional 16 words about uranium from Africa in Mr. Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address on the eve of war.

    Throughout those crucial seven months between the creation of WHIG and the start of the American invasion of Iraq, there were indications that evidence of a Saddam nuclear program was fraudulent or nonexistent. Joseph Wilson's C.I.A. mission to Niger, in which he failed to find any evidence to back up uranium claims, took place nearly a year before the president's 16 words. But the truth never mattered. The Bush-Cheney product rolled out by Card, Rove, Libby & Company had been bought by Congress, the press and the public. The intelligence and facts had been successfully fixed to sell the war, and any memory of Mr. Bush's errant 16 words melted away in Shock and Awe. When, months later, a national security official, Stephen Hadley, took responsibility for allowing the president to address the nation about mythical uranium, no one knew that Mr. Hadley, too, had been a member of WHIG.

    It was not until the war was supposedly over - with Mission Accomplished, in May 2003 - that Mr. Wilson started to add his voice to those who were disputing the administration's uranium hype. Members of WHIG had a compelling motive to shut him down. In contrast to other skeptics, like Mohamed ElBaradei of the International Atomic Energy Agency (this year's Nobel Peace Prize winner), Mr. Wilson was an American diplomat; he had reported his findings in Niger to our own government. He was a dagger aimed at the heart of WHIG and its disinformation campaign. Exactly who tried to silence him and how is what Mr. Fitzgerald presumably will tell us.

    It's long been my hunch that the WHIG-ites were at their most brazen (and, in legal terms, reckless) during the many months that preceded the appointment of Mr. Fitzgerald as special counsel. When Mr. Rove was asked on camera by ABC News in September 2003 if he had any knowledge of the Valerie Wilson leak and said no, it was only hours before the Justice Department would open its first leak investigation. When Scott McClellan later declared that he had been personally assured by Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby that they were not involved with the leak, the case was still in the safe hands of the attorney general then, John Ashcroft, himself a three-time Rove client in past political campaigns. Though Mr. Rove may be known as Bush's brain, he wasn't smart enough to anticipate that Justice Department career employees would eventually pressure Mr. Ashcroft to recuse himself because of this conflict of interest, clearing the way for an outside prosecutor as independent as Mr. Fitzgerald.

    Bush's Brain is the title of James Moore and Wayne Slater's definitive account of Mr. Rove's political career. But Mr. Rove is less his boss's brain than another alliterative organ (or organs), that which provides testosterone. As we learn in Bush's Brain, bad things (usually character assassination) often happen to Bush foes, whether Ann Richards or John McCain. On such occasions, Mr. Bush stays compassionately above the fray while the ruthless Mr. Rove operates below the radar, always separated by a layer of operatives from any ill behavior that might implicate him. There is no crime, just a victim, Mr. Moore and Mr. Slater write of this repeated pattern.

    THIS modus operandi was foolproof, shielding the president as well as Mr. Rove from culpability, as long as it was about winning an election. The attack on Mr. Wilson, by contrast, has left them and the Cheney-Libby tag team vulnerable because it's about something far bigger: protecting the lies that took the country into what the Reagan administration National Security Agency director, Lt. Gen. William Odom, recently called the greatest strategic disaster in United States history.

    Whether or not Mr. Fitzgerald uncovers an indictable crime, there is once again a victim, but that victim is not Mr. or Mrs. Wilson; it's the nation. It is surely a joke of history that even as the White House sells this weekend's constitutional referendum as yet another victory for democracy in Iraq, we still don't know the whole story of how our own democracy was hijacked on the way to war.

Didn't realize you cornered the market.  But, hey, if you want some Bible verses, I can pitch a few of those too.

Sorry if I offended you, but I imagine the OP was perhaps a little offended at your insinuation that she was a paranoid lunatic.  Well, as momma always said, if you can't take the heat...

or

Don't dish it out if you can't eat it.

In every place I go where the pledge is recited ballgames mostly when we got to the words under God it's amplified UNDER GOD!!!  That's what I intend on doing even if it becomes illegal.  I don't care if they outlaw the word God period I'll shout it from the mountaintops.  First of all to glorify my God, and second of all to irritate those who think it's a curse word.

Go ahead sue me...hang me...chop my head off.  The best is yet to come for me anyway. 

the McCain campaing has set Palin up to be the attacker of Obama's character and let McCain talk about what they will do if they are elected. 

As for Palin lying, I do believe that Obama has not been 100% truthful with things brought out about him.  He has changed his story several times on different associations and issues and that makes me not trust him. 

I do find it interesting that a lot of times what an Obama supporter can say about Palin....a McCain supporter can say about Obama.  LOL!  Kind of makes you wonder what the heck all of us are thinking really. 

One thing that holds true for me in the case of Sarah Palin is that she cut spending in her state.  I truly do believe that for the sake our country....we need to cut back on the government pending and this just reinforces my trust in McCain and Palin to do just that.  Obama...on the other hand....I believe will not cut back on spending as he has endorsed more pork in his short term in senate than McCain has his entire career.....and that to me says a lot.  And that has nothing to do with him being a POW and having the scars to prove it.  LOL!

I could  not care less so long as they don't mess around with the constitution.  I do think, however, that there is much ado about nothing.  As for the alleged tax breaks...when my husband and I married we asked my CPA about tax ramifications.  He said we would be better off to marry.  When we filed our first joint return, the same CPA said he didn't realize how much our income was and that in fact, marrying was the worst thing we could do tax-wise.  So if gays/lesbians want to marry for tax purposes, they had better take a good hard look at where the marriage will put them.

I don't know that there's anything legal/illegal about it but I expect that in the case of serious illness or injury a significant other would not be kept from the bedside. 

My husband and I used an attorney to draw up papers (forget what they are called) that directs everything that could possibly be foreseen and the cost was something like $350.  That would work just as well for gays/lesbians I would think.

We  have a gay couple in our community, also biracial.  They moved here from another state.  Both wear wedding rings, I have no idea what it symbolizes, haven't asked.  One is rather elderly and has relatives here but they accept the significant other and everyone just goes about their business.

Gay/lesbian relations are not new, it goes all the way back to biblical times.  I don't lean in that direction myself so I do not know anything about it, whether it is a choice or people are born with that bend.  I just have a hard time with God saying that it is an abomination for a man to lie with a man as with a woman and then that He would turn around and cause people to be born with this kind of sexual orientation.  That being said, let them do what they will, it is between them and God.  Like religion and politics, they don't need to try to shove it down the throats of the majority who are heterosexual.

that Jesse Jackson is a detriment to the black community.  Surely there has to be someone better to represent and stand up for the black community.  If a white person made the general comments that Jesse Jackson does......the black community would scream racism.  His own son spoke negatively about his father and his comment. 

I personally don't feel that there will ever be equality between the races because people are constantly wanting to point the finger at the other race.  Do I want equality....yes...of course I do.  I have many black friends who are great people that I care about.  But until we stop pointing the finger at the other race, it won't stop.  Prejudice and racism is on both sides.  It isn't just the white folks or the black people.....it is on both sides and until people stop and realize that and learn to forgive and forget and be accepting.......it won't change.

As for Bill Cosby, I loved watching the Bill Cosby Show when I was younger, but the more I learn about Bill......the more I think he is a huge bigot.

failure in our government is a failure on both sides.  This isn't strictly dems, although dems control the congress, and this isn't strictly reps even though the pres is a rep.  I think they should all stop pointing fingers as what is done is done and find a solution that will benefit the tax payers and not line the crooks' pockets with money anymore than they already are.

As for McCain....no matter what....at least he had the balls to say....HEY...we have a problem here.  That is more than other politicians have done who benefited from FMFM money.

pub or dem, who benefited from this should be the ones financially responsible to repair it.  But that isn't going to happen and I'm sick of hearing about who's responsible for it.  What about the homeowners who applied for these mortgages that they knew they couldn't afford?  I hold them responsible.  What about the banks who gave them the loan, knowing they could never repay it, but didn't care because they were just going to sell it?  I hold them responsible.  What about the CEOs who made millions on their severenace packages when they walked away from these failing companies?  I hold them responsible.  I don't care what party they are affiliated with.  But the fact is, no one person is going to be held accountable.  As a whole, the taxpayers will be made to be responsible.

You talk a good game and some of what you say makes sense.  Unfortunately, you have to read through all the pub/dem cr@p to really get to what you're saying.  Are you going to try to tell me that not 1 single pub had anything to do with any of this?  That it all rests on the individual dems?  Come on -- that's a load of bull and you know it.

Madeline Halfbright was Clinton's Sec. of State.  Don't even get me started on her.

No matter what, I give nobody a free pass just by the R behind his/her name.  Look at Olympia Snow & Susan Collins!  Talk about embarrassments!

everything except for American.  We need to unite and come together and we need to drop the extra titles.  That doesn't mean we should forget where we come from or our heritage.  It just means that when we lose focus on us all being Americans and just Americans....we start to categorize and stereotype and segregate ourselves.

Besides, I really don't want to be call an Indian-German-Scottish-Hungarian-American.  I'm an American and I'm proud of that.